Javier and all,
The problem here Javier is that there are not clearly stated rules of
discussion in the june 25th announcement. In that this is a public
forum, and you seem to be inordinately "Concerned" with disruption
issues, these rules evidently need to be in place and clearly stated
so that those attending will be able to determine what is considered
"Disruptive" and what is not. It simply cannot be an arbitrary decision.
Given you propensity to shade the truth and misrepresent the facts,
as has been demonstrated just very recently, you would not be a
good moderator. someone that is neutral should be selected to
take on this task or someone that volunteers would even be better.
Javier SOLA wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> The agreement was that all meetings will be kept open if possible. Our only
> concern is disruption. If there is disruption that does not permit the
> meeting, we would try to remove only disruptive individuals, if this is not
> enough, we would only close the meetings as a last resort. We really hope
> that this will not happen. We will have to see how we handle
> teleconferences, as there is a cost problem involved in not knowing how
> many people would join.
>
> It should be very clear that by disruption we do not mean censorship,
> Disruption means not allowing the meeting to take place by constantly
> talking out of turn, interrupting others or being generally disruptive in
> any other way. Disruptive in form, not on contents.
>
> All this should be in the minutes when they are posted.
>
> Javier
>
> At 12:14 12/06/99 -0400, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Although the Names Council has followed the letter of the law and posted an
> >announcement of the next Names Council meeting (see
> >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/calendardnso.html, quite a ways down the page), it
> >seems to me that the announcement of these important meetings deserves a
> >wider dissemination. I would have hoped that the Names Council would have
> >seen fit to announce their activities via the announce@dnso.org vehicle as
> >well.
> >
> >In any case, there will be a Names Council meeting on June 25 in San Jose.
> >It will be partly face-to-face, but teleconference participation will be
> >available as well. As you can see, it's divided into a "meeting" and a
> >"public meeting", which would seem to indicate that the first one was
> >closed, and the second one open. I'm not sure that this is the case,
> >however - given the general feeling of Names Council members at the last
> >teleconference (at which I was an observer for the ccTLD constituency) that
> >meeting should be open unless there was a good reason not to. So it may be
> >that the earlier meeting is open in the sense that anyone can observe, but
> >say nothing, while the later meeting is meant to be an open-participation
> >meeting. You may want want to contact a Names Council member to find out
> >exact details on procedure.
> >
> >I just thought everyone should know this is happening.
> >
> >Antony
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208